Have fun, don't waste these years worrying about the future, you'll get plenty of time in the next 50/60 years to do that but you'll never get your youth back.
Robert is an industry veteran. And his business hired most of Crytek staff in Europe, did you play Crysis series? Do you really believe its developers lack "experience"?
Or as an alternative one can use a generator, they are built for that purpose AND are supported by a wide range of other JS constructs without any need to create iterators manually and all that.
function * getNext(){
let i = 2;
while(true){
i = i * 2;
yield i;
}
}
It sucks because it's not a spec, that's all. HTTP is, GraphQL is. When implementing GraphQL either you follow the spec or it is not GraphQL. Same for HTTP. An vague idea shouldn't be the basis for architectural choices and I'm glad REST and its legacy are now criticized and contested.
I've found it's best to let other organizations be the guinea pigs and get the kinks out, or disprove it, before our own org adopts it. Too many get carried away with "new ideas" and dive in the deep-end blindfolded. Let it run "five years in a similar organization" is my time-proven rule of thumb. Unfortunately, I lack rank to enforce this rule.
> I assume your criticism applies to OO? Or functional programming? Or event sourcing? Or any number of programming concepts without a "standard"?
Don't assume anything, I never talked about OO, or functional programming, or event sourcing or any number of programming concepts without a "standard". Don't make up things in an attempt to further whatever point you are trying to make here. I never talked about those things and don't care about them.
The biggest problem with C isn't even it's lack of type safety, undefined behavior but that antiquated macro system which does more harm than anything.
Imagine if C had a solid AST-based macros system...
It does not surprise me. They've been extremely active on reddit and HN for years. You cannot say anything bad about Monsanto without at least a dozen of people coming at you with bullshit studies defending Monsanto products/ techs. This is a confirmation that indeed, Monsanto paid shills to systematically answer comments on internet forums to counter any criticism of that company.
This is obviously not the only company engaged in this, but the scale is insane, each time I left a comment regarding the latest Monsanto VS a farmer that got cancer due to Monsanto's product case, at least 30/50 comments were left as an answer. It happened only on Monsanto threads.
Overwhelmingly, people decide they're seeing astroturfing as a reflex response to any view they sufficiently dislike. That is an internet sauce that we all need to get off of.
More explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... The point isn't that astroturfing doesn't exist, it's that on HN, users need to comment about it factually and not simply do fantasy projection. The latter is the most common case and therefore the null hypothesis when this comes up.
This is what people have tended to say any time I defended Monsanto here --- not because I particularly like Monsanto, but because people seem to make a bunch of stuff up about them, and as a card-carrying nerd, I have a problem watching people be proudly wrong on HN. It should probably be obvious that I've never taken a dime from Monsanto (though: people in Mountain View used to think our office was a Monsanto office, due to the related spelling).
There's a reason that there's a rule in the HN guidelines about not implying shillage here. It's an easy rhetorical out, and people take it far too often. If you think a comment here is paid for or otherwise abusive, tell [email protected]; don't post about it here.
> but because people seem to make a bunch of stuff up about them, and as a card-carrying nerd, I have a problem watching people be proudly wrong on HN.
Precisely my position, "frankenfood" just grinds my gears.
On the flip side, Monsanto gets some incredibly ridiculous comments directed towards it. Things that even those who have the most hatred for Monsanto would realize doesn't add up.
People on Reddit in particular love to point out when someone is wrong. For free. Discussions about Monsanto are low hanging fruit and easily searched out. The fact that you received 30-50 comments suggests to me that most were just regular Reddit users doing what Reddit users do.
What if the paid trolls were the ones who posted the ridiculous comments so that the 'right fighters' come out of the woodwork in droves to defend the company? Once they get used to defending the company for things that are clearly false, they become skeptical of the real grievances. That's kind of brilliant when you think about it.
A Shill Defence Force® that lures them into never ending flamewars, so the rest of us can post in peace. I like it. Someone needs to start a fundraiser and get the mechanical turk going.
That's an interesting dynamic I hadn't thought of before and is for sure the reason I have any opinion at all about Monsanto (for the sport of spotting the bad countervailing opinions). It's a funny thought, but there's no way Monsanto is paying people to post dumb anti-Monsanto arguments; the anti-Monsanto position is much more popular on message boards.
Using the "shill argument" basically shuts down any possibility for an actual discussion or discourse. If you truly believe that a commentator is doing something like that, you should honestly just flag the comment and move on.
The entire point of HN, or at least in its attempt, is to be able to have meaningful conversations, and it will be to great detriment for the community if we allow rhetorical criticism like this to become more prevalent.
I had an example two weeks ago to a comment r/cscareerquestions. I made a derogatory comment about Monsanto in a thread with 7 comments and a couple of up votes, no way it would garner the number of downvotes my comment received. The only explanation the one presented here.
It's a good text editor, first and foremost. Compared to netbeans, eclipse, visual studio, even intellj idea in my opinion. The same thing that made textmate, then sublime text successful made VSC successful. I takes a few seconds to launch, even on my celeron machine with 2Gigs of RAM, it's relatively minimal and unlike intellj it doesn't appear to be analyzing my whole hard drive for hours for no reason...
the irony is that Microsoft did hire Eclipse creator to work on that product... hopefully it doesn't end up bloated. Having an open spec for language servers is also a smart move. While others have their proprietary, often non speced protocol, now any text editor can implement the same protocol and basically use any language server already developed.
So kudos for Microsoft, it's a great piece of engineering.
> It's a good text editor, first and foremost. Compared to netbeans, eclipse, visual studio, even intellj idea
Have to disagree with VSC being better than Intellij. I find Intellij refactoring, debugging and autocomplete far ahead of VSC, especially when it comes to supporting leaser known features, or recently released language changes.
> Have to disagree with VSC being better than Intellij.
I didn't say it was a better than Intellij, I said it's a better text editor I'm not talking about integrated development, I'm talking about text editing.
VSC and Intellij aren't the same thing. If you want better refactoring and debugging there are definitely plugins that do exactly that. Hard disagree on autocomplete, I've never run into a single situation where Intellij did it better.
I tend to agree except for languages where the plugin ecosystem on VSC is still lacking. Ruby, for example. RubyMine is still much nicer by comparison, especially when working with Rails.
Actually I really do not like VSC resource consumption and performance. It feels more like eclipse than text editor but it does not offer as many features. If I want something fast and lightweight I reach for vim or sublime. But I do not care about start time as I leave all those program open all the time.
> IndieGoGo is a haven for scammers. They have absolutely no interest in protecting you. Even if you point out that the scammer is actively scamming currently, they won't do anything.
They actually do protect their backers better than Kickstarter sometimes:
